3D industry mistakes

[Jimmy Smith]

4 ways Industry are killing 3D

In case you’ve been living under a rock the last 3 years you might not be aware that 3D is all the rage. Avatar’s huge success show people love 3D when it’s well done. When given the choice at most theatres of a cheaper 2D option 70% of consumers choose to see the movie in 3D. Major animation studios have all announced all computer animated movies will be 3D from now on. Best of all we now have a standard to deliver high quality 3D at home on everybody’s favorite format Blu-Ray. Not everything is well in 3D. Hollywood has made some decisions that are flat out stupid and putting temporary greed over the long term success of 3D.

1. Anaglyph – One of 3D biggest hurdles is convincing people to jump into 3D whose only perception is 3D delivered through the anaglyph process. Several Blu-Rays have given 3D releases done through the anaglyph process. Including Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Final Destination, and Coralline. The advantage to anaglyph is that it is by far the cheapest form of 3D requiring only cardboard glasses that you can practically make yourself and works and delivers a true stereoscopic 3D effect on any television and any Blu-Ray player. This is because it doesn’t truly send two independent eye signals but simply color tints a single image and allows glasses to filter out different colors to each eye. The problem with this process is that it produces pretty pitiful 3D. People bought these releases probably after seeing movies like Polar Express or Coralline in the theatres 3D. Only afterword did they find out the 3D experience these Blu-Rays deliver is not what they saw in the theater. Anaglyph 3D movies are filled with ghosting, depth of field problems, low resolution appearance (even when encoded at 1080p), and the movies color field totally destroyed. There not all bad. They do deliver a real 3D effect for those who need some kind of 3D and don’t want to shell out the cash for active shutter. The problem is the consumer confusion these movies are certain to create. It is gonna be difficult explaining to people that there are different kinds of 3D on Blu-Ray. Fact is every person turned off by anaglyph discs is one less potential sale of true 3D. I’m sure thousands have given up on 3D entirely because they were turned off by anaglyph. The industry should have foreseen this and waited till proper technology was available before bring 3D to Blu-Ray. However Hollywood put short term ahead of the interests of the 3D market.

2. Overpriced glasses – New 3D televisions are based on active shutter. These glasses are battery powered and actively shut from one eye to the other to deliver the 3D effect. This makes the televisions cheaper due to the lack of extra light polarization used in the theatres would. The price of these glasses is simply outrageous. They currently sell for $150. 3D at home will never be viable until the glasses come way way down. With televisions only coming with one pair a family of five will have to spend $600 to have a family 3D night. All this for a 3D experiance similar to what movie theatres deliever for an extra 2 bucks. But its worse. The glasses can only be used for that brand of television. If you have two different 3D televisions u need different glasses for each. But wait it gets even better. These glasses are easily broken when dropped or mishandled. Do you really feel comfortable giving your kids a fragile $150 piece of equipment to wear on there face. Simply put active shutter glasses today are a financial risk that few in today’s poor economy can bear. For 3D at home to take off the price of the glasses are gonna have to drop and drop fast and more standardization is important

3. Exclusivity deals and double dip attempts – There are presently zero 3D Full HD movies available for open purchase. Zero. In the real world content is king. What reason does someone have to buy an expensive new television when there is nothing avalible to take advantage of its star feature. Now matter how good 3D looks it will never take off until it’s given affordable movies that people actually want. At the moment the only 3D Blu-Ray is Monsters vs. Aliens which can only be purchased with Samsungs equitant. What if you bought a 3D TV from a different manufacturer and want the movie. Well you’re out of luck. DreamWorks will be selling it exclusively with Samsung for a year and they plan of doing the same thing with the Shrek trilogy later this summer. This is classic studio putting short term profit over long term success. Surely Samsungs exclusivity deal got them more cash then the extremely small 3D market ever would. However 3D will never have a market unless movies are openly available. This goes double for Fox’s decision to release Avatar in 2D only for 2010. Avatar is the kind of movie that would convince thousands to purchase 3D televisions just to see this in 3D. Fox however doesn’t seem to care about that instead favoring the profit of a few double dips over helping 3D take off. Avatar was shot in 3D from the ground up. 3D is how Avatar was meant to be seen and seeing the movie in 2D is just incomplete. The paradoxical reasoning is mind numbing. They limit 3Ds growth by not providing any real content and then justify it by saying 3Ds market is too small. It will remain small indefinitely until people can affordable purchase 3D Blu-Rays without needing to buy expensive equipment to get it.

4. Half conversions – One of problems with 3D is the extremely limited nature of native 3D content. For computer animated movies this is a non-issue. All computer animated movies are natively rendered in 3D and can easily be converted to stereoscopic vision with a simple re-render from the original digital files. This is why modern 3D has been mostly used with animated movies. Unfortunately for live action content it’s not so simple. There are two ways to deliver live action content in 3D. First is to shoot it with 3D cameras. These cameras shoot the world like the human eyes do. They use two lenses right next to each other and capture two very similar images that can be combined into a single 3D image. Unfortunately many filmmakers see shooting in 3D to difficult on site so simply converting 2D shot footage is very popular. With conversion a digital artist manipulates the image breaking it up into layers of depth and adding a layer of digital shading on the 2D image to give it a 3D effect. Problem with this process is that the real world doesn’t have a finite number of layers of depth but a virtually unlimited number of layers of depth. A 3D camera captures this fact much better then even the best conversions can. When all the resources are there to shoot in 3D it makes no sense to use conversion in my humble opinion. However when done right conversion can still look pretty damn good. For example The Nightmare before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland looked great at times. My biggest problem is conversions done at the last minute with a low budget. The best example is the recent Clash of the Titans given a quick 8 week 3D conversion late in post production that look awful. Full of ghosting, flat backgrounds, and dark color. Quality conversions take time according to James Cameron six months to a year depending on the movie. Therefore the decision to convert must be made early in production never in post. Just like anaglyphs Blu-Rays half assed conversions leave a bad taste in people’s mouths about 3D in general and hurt 3D when it’s done right. If people are gonna pay $2-4 extra the 3D better enhance the experience not be there as a cheap trick. Sadly with Clash pulling in big bucks it might convince cynical greedy executives that putting the cash for quality 3D is unnecessary to make a profit. That’s why it’s important to save your money and see poorly converted movies in 2D or not at all.

5. Droping extras from 3D Blu-Rays - In the early days of Blu-Ray dropped extras were a real problem for the format. Fox was the biggest offender. Even when space to include all the extras was ample many releases would obnoxiously drop extras from previously released DVD versions left and right in the vain hope that people who want everything will buy both versions. This was truely anti-consumerism at its worst. People who upgrade to a new format don't want to keep there old releases they want to replace them and studios dropping extras made that difficult. Lukely today studios have been much better and giving the Blu-Ray all the DVDs extras. Unfortunitly studios seem to be doing the same thing for 3D. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 3D Blu-Ray was announced to have less extras then the previous 2D only release. Given the movies short length there really is no excuse for this. Yes 3D does require higher bitrates but BD-50s space is still ample. A 90 minute 3D Full HD movie can still easily fit 2 hours of HD extras and 12 hours of SD extras. If space is not there for extras for example a long 3D movie like Avatar a second disc can easily and cheaply be provided. For 3D to suceed 3D discs need to be a true upgrade and they must include ALL the content from previous 2D only Blu-Rays.

[quetzalcoatl]

You missed one point under the glasses. Them being only able to be used on that brand of TV right now.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

You missed one point under the glasses. Them being only able to be used on that brand of TV right now.

Good point I added it in

[Clark Kent]

All your points are well-reasoned and make sense. I think consumers have upgrade fatigue when it comes to electronics, particularly for Blu-ray and HDTV. The manufacturers keep moving the bar every few months it seems in hardware. Timing of this move is also questionable, given the general downturn in the global economy.

It is 2010, and we are barely getting enough Blu-rays that are coming out. The reckless push for 3-D seems putting the cart before the horse.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

All your points are well-reasoned and make sense. I think consumers have upgrade fatigue when it comes to electronics, particularly for Blu-ray and HDTV. The manufacturers keep moving the bar every few months it seems in hardware. Timing of this move is also questionable, given the general downturn in the global economy.

It is 2010, and we are barely getting enough Blu-rays that are coming out. The reckless push for 3-D seems putting the cart before the horse.

You completely misinterpret me. Im a huge 3D supporter and I think the new 3D Blu-Ray standard is amazing. I fully support 3Ds current rollout but I also believe it must be done right. Short sighted gains at long term expense only hurt industry growth. Puting out inferior products in the short term might trick a few unsuspecting consumers into giving them more money but in the long run will hold cinema advancement back.

[Clark Kent]

You are one of those people...just kidding. I think 3-D is viable in the home, but I would have preferred another two years or so for the Blu-ray market to establish itself without 3-D becoming an issue.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Think to back when HDTV's first hit the market...remember the lack of content then? I don't expect 3DTV's to explode overnight, I think that in about 10 years time they will have a pretty big share of the market, if it follows the same kind of timetable that HDTV did. Once big networks like ESPN, Discovery, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc. start airing content in 3D and more movies are released on Blu-ray 3D, people will start buying the new hardware and all will be well

[Buddy Christ]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Timing of this move is also questionable, given the general downturn in the global economy.

Though it seems that most people on this site have plenty of money to spend on Blu-ray Discs

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

You are one of those people...just kidding. I think 3-D is viable in the home, but I would have preferred another two years or so for the Blu-ray market to establish itself without 3-D becoming an issue.

I don't think Blu-ray 3D will hurt 2D sales, I think 2D players will continue to sell well for several years until the 3D players are cheaper and the CE companies phase out the 2D players (why make both when the 3D players are backwards-compatible?). And 2D BD sales will remain high because many movies will never see the light of day on 3D, whereas a lot of new releases over the next few years will probably be shot with 3D cameras (like Avatar) and those will look awesome on 3DTV's.

[Clark Kent]

The introduction of 3-D Blu-ray confuses customers who have been waiting on the sideline so far. I have seen it in other forums like Slashdot, where many people are cynical that it is just another move by Hollywood to get us to lay out more money, right after people have bought into HDTV and Profile 2.0.

The never-ending parade of upgrades to the format does look problematic, for people who have not yet bought into Blu-ray at all.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

All your points are well-reasoned and make sense. I think consumers have upgrade fatigue when it comes to electronics, particularly for Blu-ray and HDTV. The manufacturers keep moving the bar every few months it seems in hardware. Timing of this move is also questionable, given the general downturn in the global economy.

It is 2010, and we are barely getting enough Blu-rays that are coming out. The reckless push for 3-D seems putting the cart before the horse.

But that assumes 3D is a separate format from the Blu-Rays we use now. Its the same format just with a new feature. 3D discs are fully compatible with 2D players and Ive never heard of a format adding a new feature hurting it.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

Think to back when HDTV's first hit the market...remember the lack of content then? I don't expect 3DTV's to explode overnight, I think that in about 10 years time they will have a pretty big share of the market, if it follows the same kind of timetable that HDTV did. Once big networks like ESPN, Discovery, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc. start airing content in 3D and more movies are released on Blu-ray 3D, people will start buying the new hardware and all will be well

I never expected an explosion of content. I just believe what content is avalible should be freely sold on the open market not tied up in exclusivity deals that require you buy expensive equitment in order to own a friggin movie.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

I never expected an explosion of content. I just believe what content is avalible should be freely sold on the open market not tied up in exclusivity deals that require you buy expensive equitment in order to own a friggin movie.

I agree with you, but like you said earlier i'm sure that Dreamworks made more money from the deal with Samsung than they would with 1st year sales of the 3D Blu-ray. Just think, you can own your favorite movie in 3D in a year without buying a new Samsung setup lol

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

I agree with you, but like you said earlier i'm sure that Dreamworks made more money from the deal with Samsung than they would with 1st year sales of the 3D Blu-ray. Just think, you can own your favorite movie in 3D in a year without buying a new Samsung setup lol

Well I highly doubt Monsters vs Aliens is anyones favorite movie But at the present its the only 3D Full HD Blu-Ray in existance and from first hand experiance from the Best Buy demo it looks fantastic. Hope Pixar releases one of there movies in 3D before the years up. Finger crossed.

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

You completely misinterpret me. Im a huge 3D supporter and I think the new 3D Blu-Ray standard is amazing. I fully support 3Ds current rollout but I also believe it must be done right. Short sighted gains at long term expense only hurt industry growth. Puting out inferior products in the short term might trick a few unsuspecting consumers into giving them more money but in the long run will hold cinema advancement back.

With all respect, I don't see how you can be a huge 3D supporter yet fully support 3D's current rollout and at the same time 'believe it must be done right'; these assertions are mutually contradictory. If you truly believe that 3D has to be done right, then you cannot possibly support the current rollout.

You're absolutely right on the money when you note - "Short sighted gains at long term expense only hurt industry growth" and that "Puting out inferior products in the short term might trick a few unsuspecting consumers into giving them more money but in the long run will hold cinema advancement back".

These were the crux of the problem with blu-ray 2D and now we are seeing exactly the same with blu-ray 3D. The studios and CEs need to stop treating 3D as just the next home entertainment cash cow and take out the time to iron out the kinks and rollout out 3D slowly and properly - starting with developing a 3D format that does not require the wearing of glasses.

I strongly believe the scientific ingenuity and resources to solve this problem exists. The challenges is harnessing and coordinating the research effort. This is where the studios and CEs should focus their energies right now rather than rushing yet another unfinished and overhyped product to the market.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by blacklion

With all respect, I don't see how you can be a huge 3D supporter yet fully support 3D's current rollout and at the same time 'believe it must be done right'; these assertions are mutually contradictory. If you truly believe that 3D has to be done right, then you cannot possibly support the current rollout.

You're absolutely right on the money when you note - "Short sighted gains at long term expense only hurt industry growth" and that "Puting out inferior products in the short term might trick a few unsuspecting consumers into giving them more money but in the long run will hold cinema advancement back".

These were the crux of the problem with blu-ray 2D and now we are seeing exactly the same with blu-ray 3D. The studios and CEs need to stop treating 3D as just the next home entertainment cash cow and take out the time to iron out the kinks and rollout out 3D slowly and properly - starting with developing a 3D format that does not require the wearing of glasses.

I strongly believe the scientific ingenuity and resources to solve this problem exists. The challenges is harnessing and coordinating the research effort. This is where the studios and CEs should focus their energies right now rather than rushing yet another unfinished and overhyped product to the market.

A 3D format that does not require glasses is not a viable option and probably won't be for many many years. Autostero displays are extremely limited and have nagging sweet spot viewing that gives a user very little freedom to watch from there home. I don't have any problem with a system that requires glasses I just wish the glasses were more affordable and were better standardized accross different brands

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

A 3D format that does not require glasses is not a viable option and probably won't be for many many years. Autostero displays are extremely limited and have nagging sweet spot viewing that gives a user very little freedom to watch from there home. I don't have any problem with a system that requires glasses I just wish the glasses were more affordable and were better standardized accross different brands

Au contraire, it is the only viable option; those glasses will prevent the current iteration of 3D from ever getting beyond a niche format for gamers and geeks. Blu-ray 2D is not even mainstream yet.

Its also one very much worth waiting many years for. Better that 3D be deferred for a decade or so until scientists work out a cheap way to render it without need for wearing glasses.

The studios and the CEs should avoid repeating their greed-inspired errors with blu-ray and invest the necessary time and effort until they get 3D right.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by blacklion

Au contraire, it is the only viable option; those glasses will prevent the current iteration of 3D from ever getting beyond a niche format for gamers and geeks. Blu-ray 2D is not even mainstream yet.

Its also one very much worth waiting many years for. Better that 3D be deferred for a decade or so until scientists work out a cheap way to render it without need for wearing glasses.

The studios and the CEs should avoid repeating their greed-inspired errors with blu-ray and invest the necessary time and effort until they get 3D right.

You can wait for autostero to properly work if you want. I and many many others have absolutely no problem wearing glasses. Certainly it is an inconvience however it also is the only way at the present time to deliver quality 3D. By your logic we shouldn't have introduced Blu-Ray cause 4k displays will eventually be out. Thats absurd. There is nothing wrong with allowing consumers an option for high quality 3D video for those who can tolarate the inconvience of having to put on a pair of glasses. Not to mention the Blu-Ray 3D standard is display agnostic. Meaning that its 3D can be adapted to both active shutter 3D, polarized 3D, and down the road autostero displays can deliever 3D from current discs as well. Why should I have to wait a decade stuck in 2 dimensions just because you don't like glasses. Your logic makes absolutely no sense.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

. . All this for a 3D experiance similar to what movie theatres deliever for an extra 2 bucks. .

Not quite.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

lack of decent content for 3-D is due to the fact that it's really close to impossible to shoot good 3-D content for live action

Shooting in 3D is far from impossible. In fact is very viable and has been done incredibely sucessfully on numerous live action productions. I suggest you read up on the Fusion 3D camera system these cameras used on all the live action footage of Avatar, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Final Destination produces amazing 3D results better then even the best looking conversions. The upcoming release of Resident Evil Afterlife, Step Up 2, and Tron 2 will be shot entirely with 3D fusion cameras. When these cameras producing the best 3D results it frustrates me to no end that so many 3D productions are done with conversion.